When a great soul grows up in a little city, despises the business of the city and looks out beyond, then perhaps it will join a very small group which remain to keep company with philosophy in a way that’s worthy.
- A brutal paraphrase of Plato, see 496 a-e for more.
You win, let's play again!
Case History: To be found in its entirety at Nato's Blog.
Ross: You [stan] know that life is unfair, when you say:
“A just God would have at least ask for our consent before having us be created into this world” and “If God is truly just, then He would offer either Heaven or nothing, so that non-Christians who die won’t go to Hell but instead just end.”
Those are profound statements, because they’re certainly not something that a purely scientific world-view would teach you. Science and modern philosophy is *in general* indifferent to the suffering that goes on in this world.
era: Are you serious? Because from what I can tell, between ethics and medicine, they have done far more to help remove suffering from the world than the bible ever has.
Ross: Sorry Era, that statement was very broad and written hastily. When I said science, I was thinking of the theory of Darwinian Natural Selection (and what that implies about suffering) and when I said modern philosophy I was thinking of, I don’t know, Friedrich Nietzsche?
The Tangent
So Ross, with your revised understanding of philosophy and science *in general* as Darwin and Nietzsche, how are we supposed to understand the point you were trying to make when you said to stan "Those are profound statements, because they’re certainly not something that a purely scientific world-view would teach you."?
I find myself incapable of expressing how many things I find wrong with this idea that a scientific world view is completely sterile and is incapable of any humanity. I've come across this idea a couple of times now, and it continues to baffle me. So what I'm really hoping for is an explanation of the position which might stand up to a bit of rational critique.
Praxis means the combination of theory and practice. First you decide what it is best to do, which is good, and then you do it, which is also good. So praxis is really good all round. On the other hand, if you decide what it is best to do, but fail to do it, then this isn't really that good. And if you don't decide what it is best to do, but just do whatever, then that isn't really very good either. And to boot, like all good words "praxis" is actually Greek. Thus it is not surprising that the Greek philosopher Aristotle discusses praxis in his Nicomachean Ethics*.
If you actually think that philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle contemplated merely, without doing anything, then please consider whether founding the Academy or the Lyceum were practical enterprises. Unfortunately many of the heirs to philosophy were not so keen on this whole idea of combining theory and practice, and some (neo-platonist christians... grr) positively shunned it. Happily for us we can skip forward to Mr. Marx, who kindly points this out, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." Unfortunately most people don't really think that it worked out so well for Mr. Marx, and so philosophy has largely returned to inconsequential contemplation.
* Note: If you have not read Aristotle's Ethics, and you want to consider yourself as half educated or even a quarter informed, then you really need to. My choice of translation is the one by Terence Irwin.
Yahweh: Whatever you do, DO NOT push the red button.
Us: Why not?
Yahweh: Because, pushing it will give you the knowledge of which buttons you should and should not push.
Us: wtf?
[edit: bonus question]
Do any of these red button ideas, which make our lives worse by knowing them, actually exist?
"...Conceive this sort of thing happening either on many ships or on one: Picture a shipmaster in height and strength surpassing all others on the ship, but who is slightly deaf and of similarly impaired vision, and whose knowledge of navigation is on a par with his sight and hearing. Conceive the sailors to be wrangling with one another for control of the helm, each claiming that it is his right to steer though he has never learned the art and cannot point out his teacher or any time when he studied it. And what is more, they affirm that it cannot be taught at all, but they are ready to make mincemeat of anyone who says that it can be taught, and meanwhile they are always clustered about the shipmaster importuning him and sticking at nothing to induce him to turn over the helm to them. And sometimes, if they fail and others get his ear, they put the others to death or cast them out from the ship, and then, after binding and stupefying the worthy shipmaster with mandragora or intoxication or otherwise, they take command of the ship, consume its stores and, drinking and feasting, make such a voyage of it as is to be expected from such, and as if that were not enough, they praise and celebrate as a navigator, a pilot, a master of shipcraft, the man who is most cunning to lend a hand in persuading or constraining the shipmaster to let them rule, while the man who lacks this craft they censure as useless. They have no suspicions that the true pilot must give his attention to the time of the year, the seasons, the sky, the winds, the stars, and all that pertains to his art if he is to be a true ruler of a ship, and that he does not believe that there is any art or science of seizing the helm with or without the consent of others, or any possibility of mastering this alleged art and the practice of it at the same time with the science of navigation. With such goings-on aboard ship do you not think that the real pilot would in very deed be called a star-gazer, an idle babbler, a useless fellow, by the sailors in ships managed after this fashion?”
“Quite so,” said Adeimantus.
“You take my meaning, I presume, and do not require us to put the comparison to the proof and show that the condition we have described is the exact counterpart of the relation of the state to the true philosophers.”
“It is indeed,” he said.
“To begin with, then, teach this parable to the man who is surprised that philosophers are not honored in our cities, and try to convince him that it would be far more surprising if they were honored.”
“I will teach him,” he said.
“And say to him further: You are right in affirming that the finest spirit among the philosophers are of no service to the multitude. But bid him blame for this uselessness, not the finer spirits, but those who do not know how to make use of them. For it is not the natural course of things that the pilot should beg the sailors to be ruled by him or that wise men should go to the doors of the rich. The author of that epigram was a liar. But the true nature of things is that whether the sick man be rich or poor he must needs go to the door of the physician, and everyone who needs to be governed to the door of the man who knows how to govern, not that the ruler should implore his natural subjects to let themselves be ruled, if he is really good for anything. But you will make no mistake in likening our present political rulers to the sort of sailors we are just describing, and those whom these call useless and star-gazing ideologists to the true pilots.”
“Just so,” he said.
- Plato, Republic VI.
Every so often I become aware they I'm a deeply unhappy person. The source of this unhappiness is so deeply rooted that I cannot see how anyone else could actually be happy. Admittedly a lot of people don't seem to feel the same as me, but of course they're too preoccupied with trifles to think hard or long enough to unearth a deeper unhappiness than mere dissatisfaction of not having what they want.
A little introspection of late has lead me to understand myself as having two major emotional needs. Basically I want to be loved. We all want to be loved. Deeply loved by someone, just loved by a few important people, and unloved by everyone else. Who am I that is loved? If I were someone else would you still love me? If I become someone else will you still love me? Because the other basic emotional need is freedom and independence. I cannot stand being overtly told to do anything, and only hate being implicitly expected to do anything slightly less.
So you see the problem, my emotional needs are fundamentally incompatible. How could I be happy when either one is not satisfied? But how could one possibly be satisfied while the other is? I think I'm deeply broken person, and I think that you are too.
CALLICLES: Is Socrates in earnest, or is he joking?
SOCRATES: I declare, O Callicles, that Callicles will never be at one with himself, but that his whole life will be a discord. And yet, my friend, I would rather that my lyre should be inharmonious, and that there should be no music in the chorus which I provided; aye, or that the whole world should be at odds with me, and oppose me, rather than that I myself should be at odds with myself, and contradict myself.
Are you a literate degenerate or wastrel? Then you might enjoy reading The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley, The Doors did. Just remember not to come to class tripping.
I spent the stroll to uni pondering what a language without negation would be like. You wouldn't be able to distinguish between someone meaning what they said and the opposite of what they said. But I'm more interested to hear what you think, so, thoughts anyone?
Fathers fear in case the natural love of their children is wiped out. So what is this nature capable of being wiped out?
Custom is a second nature which destroys the first.
But what is nature? Why is custom not natural?
I am very much afraid that nature is itself only a first custom, just as custom is a second nature.
Human nature can be considered in two ways. One according to our end, and then we are great and incomparable. The other according to the masses, and then we are low and vile. These are the two ways by which we are judged differently, and which make the philosophers argue so furiously.
For one way denies the supposition of the other. One claims: 'We were not born to this end, because all our actions deny it.' The other claims; 'We are distancing ourselves from the end when we commit these base acts.’
Some observations:
People do not like to be proven wrong.
Some people would rather look right while remaining wrong, than become right after looking wrong.
People assume that if you think that they are wrong, that you also think that you are right.
People do not like being told the rules governing what is and is not a reasonable argument.
People do not like being told that there are such rules.
People really do not like being told that questioning such rules is incoherent (because in doing so they tactily accept them.)
So I'm wondering how we ended up where we are now, when they were up to this in 1784.
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
"Men are so necessarily mad that it would be another twist of madness not to be mad."
-Pascal, Pensées.
I admire you stan for being so honestly mad. As Pascal, I think rightly, points out, you would be more mad not to be mad. Nevertheless, what I cannot help but wonder is 'what is stan so mad about?' So here we are stan, and I ask you, what are you mad about? Please think of this as an invitation to communication, and perhaps while you think about how best to express why you are mad you will keep this at the front of your mind.
I told a girl that I loved her, she asked if I meant "érōs", "philía", or "agápē".
We all know that philosophy is the love of wisdom. Some think that wisdom means true knowledge; hence, philosophy becomes the love of true knowledge. To me though wisdom is practical knowledge; so philosophy becomes something more like the love of knowing how to live well. So much for sophía. Being a romantic I'm slightly more interested in love, in particular which Greek word for love best captures a love of wisdom. I have not studied Greek as a language, and by no means am I an expert about these things, but from what I have managed to piece together there are three main words for love.
Firstly, there is agápē, which i think of as being downwards love. It is an altruistic love that is best captured by the love god showed us when he sacrificed his only son to save us. The reason for seeing it as being downwards love is that the object of agápē is something below you. As man is below god, the people who receive my charity are below me. I think it almost goes without saying that this is not the love that characterises a philosophers love of wisdom.
Next, there is philía, which I think of as being sideways love. It is a brotherly love that is best captured by the love between family members and friends. The reason for seeing it as being sideways love is that the object of philía is pretty much on the same level as you. I love my brother, and my brother loves me in return, and philía correctly describes the relationship in both directions. Strangely this is the word that is used to describe a philosophers love of wisdom. But doing so supposes that you are on equal terms with wisdom. This doesn't seem to square with the fact that the hero of philosophy, Socrates, is significant for expressing his own lack of wisdom and showing the same is true of everyone that he entered into discussion with. If a philosopher thought he was wise, then he would not be, and philía to me suggests that the philosopher thinks they are on the level with wisdom.
Lastly is érōs, which I think of as being an upwards love. It is a lusty love that is traditionally rendered as being romantic or erotic love. The reason for seeing it as being upwards love is that érōs is determined by the higher beauty and worthiness of the object being loved. It is a love of something that you do not have, but that you are you pursuing with your whole self. This is exactly the sort of love that a philosopher should have towards wisdom. To truly learn you must first realise that you lack knowledge. Once you realise this, yet see that it is pure and beautiful and worthy, then no obstacle will be great enough to stand in the way of you pursuing it with all your life. It is for these reasons that I believe Philosophy would be more accurately named Erosophy.
[edit: L2speelnoob]
Society, it seems to me, has a very effective mechanism for keeping people in line; if you say something people don't want to hear, then you're excluded from the conversation. I find that the more I study philosophy, the less possible it is to meaningfully discuss anything I care about with anyone else. I could say I feel like Benito Cereno, but you haven't read that either. The problem is that Socrate's message is a negative one. He is the wisest man alive because at least he realises his ignorance, which is to say if you think you know anything then you're wrong. It is a message that people don't want to hear, and once they had killed the messenger, it is a message which is largely ignored.
I won a game of chess today; but I did not enjoy it. I did not enjoy because it is enjoyable; too enjoyable, too appealing, too much like tyranny. Therefore, because I naturally love it, I exercise my freedom to hate it.
People have done appalling things in history, but this only scares me because it could have been me doing them. People are doing appalling things around the world, but this only scares me because it could have been me doing them. People will do appalling things in the future, but this only scares me because it could be me doing them.
When will you begin to live virtuously, Plato asked an old man who was telling him that he was attending a series of lectures on virtue. One must not just speculate for ever; one must one day also think about actual practice. But today we think that those who live as they teach are dreamers.
"Since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of taking pretty frequent holidays, a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin"
- Aldous Huxley listing technology required to placate a mass of happy servants.
They just keep getting better.
era -- [noun]: A poltergeist sent back in time to change the course of history forever 'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com |
It is sad that I am already waiting to die. I only hope it will be a worthwhile death; one that will change the world, others have. A new world in which no one else will have to share my unfortunate fate of living a worthless life.
1. Harry dies.
2. Voldemort dies with Harry.
2. Snape is good, but dies.
4. Dumbledore lives.
5. Wormtail will betray Voldemort.
In all sciences you have two distinct sides. You have on the one hand a theory about reality that makes assumptions, contains equations, theorems and laws, etc. On the other hand you have reality, which you then look at to test the predictions of your theories. It seems to me that there is a major flaw in economics which plays on this distinction. Now we all know economics has its problems, but what I want to point out here is an interesting strategy that economists employ in their defense. Broadly put, when you point out a flaw on one side of the coin, they just show you the other side and expect you to be satisfied.
Say you point out that the assumptions made by economics don't hold in reality; perfect competition, perfect knowledge, perfect this, perfect that. This doesn't much phase the economist as they boast that despite the bad assumptions it works pretty well in reality.
But imagine you had instead pointed out that the predictions made by economics don't line up very well with what takes place in reality. Again the economists is not phased as they begin to say that this is because reality falls short of the economic theory, we should aspire to be more like economically rational agents, and we should change our market structure to be more free, etc.
You complain about theory, flip, they show you reality. You complain about reality, flip, they show you theory. Flip, flip, flip.
"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side."
- Bill Hicks
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.- Timothy Leary.
I've noticed in my actions a tendency to provoke awkwardness. Perhaps more worthy of concern is the fact that I rather enjoy the very awkward moments that tend to be produced. For example, a couple of weeks ago I found myself sitting next to my flatmate's mother in a church. Two options present themselves. I can smile nicely and say pleasant things, thus forming a life long friendship with this insane woman. On the other hand, I can attempt to deny that I know her and her sons in the hope that she will not recognise me. I went with denying everything. It is unusual to say that you do not know yourself by proxy. It worked well, until after the service she came up to me and pointed out that we did know each other.... *awkward* However, given the lack of phone calls I have consequently received from her, I guess my behaviour must have paid of. Anyway, the point is that whilst this was happening, I found it quite exhilarating.
An attempt at some sort of self-explanation: I was rather unfortunately inspired by The Idiots. Dating an american tends to be an exercise in having embarrassingly personal conversations loudly in public places. I might not talk about girls I would like to sleep with in front of my nana, but I wouldn't think twice on a bus. And, I guess a final sort of explanation would be my realisation of how very retarded most social etiquette and convention truly is. Does anyone know if there is a name for this condition? And does anyone else feel nostalgia for their childhood when they're sick?
Truth - Epistemology
Beauty - Aesthetics
Good - Ethics
Three separate and distinct entities, or just differing aspects of a unified entity?
Most ethics are normative, all telling you what you should and should not do, often highlighting that fact what you are doing is wrong or evil. *yawn* Some ethics are descriptive, more of an account of how people reason about moral situations. The ethics of indifference theory is like the latter type, but with the twist that it points out that most people don’t reason about moral situations.
Most people behave in pretty much morally acceptable ways. We don’t lie constantly, we don’t cheat on our partners, we don’t steal, we don’t kill people and stuff… mostly. But this is just because we are mostly indifferent to many of these opportunities. It is all very good to be faithful to your spouse if you don’t have some super attractive Lady trying to seduce you. And from what I gather (maybe I have depraved friends) when that choice is presented a significant number of people succumb to it. You might be a morally righteous vegetarian, but that is probably because you’re indifferent to eating meat in the first place. Most meat eaters do so because they profess that they aren’t indifferent, they really enjoy eating dead animals. I don’t shoplift, but that is because I have the money to afford to pay for the goods, or I just don't want the crap in the first place. Etc, etc, etc. I’m sure with a little effort you too can think of countless instances of so called good ethical behaviour really just being the application of indifference.
Now, I’m not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, I don’t actually care. But it is interesting to point it out, so I have.
Some people have already read Ishmael, and others I gather are interested in reading it. Perhaps we could organise to meet for a couple of nights to discuss it? If there is enough interest perhaps we could consequently meet to discuss the rest of the books in the series. And then even more consequently meet to discuss other interesting things; the state of the world, our place in it, what to do about it, etc. These are all things you might have guessed I've spent some time thinking about and have (strongish) opinions on.
WARNING: Reading such books and discussing such things has been known to break minds, lives, and dreams. Also many things I say are intended to have a similar effect. Sorry on both accounts in advance. (I'm sorry like your mum is when she gives you those horrible syrup medications.)
Because apparently not everyone reads my blog, I shall also email this message out to people who I think are likely to be interested.
Many streams of memes have found their way to my mind recently. Richard's post about "Fundamentalist" Atheists struck an interesting cord. Dawkins' The God Delusion became a gift to my father for his half century celebration (so I sneakily read a bit before I wrapped it, doesn't everyone?). Likewise, Colbert chimes in right on cue.
Last night I meet with the Heretics to discuss whether they should convert heathens to Christianity. My own conclusion (not strongly voiced at the time) is that unless they can show that their beliefs have a firm (rational and based on evidence) foundation, then they should not. Conversely, any position that can claim such firm foundations has a licence, perhaps obligation, to convert non-believers.
My reasoning runs something like: When forming beliefs people should only accept as true things that can be rationally demonstrated to have firm foundations. This is indifferent to whom in particular you happen to be. Thus, if you have stood fast to this method of forming and screening beliefs, then you are in a position to rationally argue with other people, attempting to convince them of your beliefs. If they are rational, and your reasoning is correct, then they should consequently assent to your beliefs. Any belief based upon faith is thus ruled out as sort of thing you should convert people to.
(Note on what arguments are: When two people disagree this must either be the result of either one, or both, of them not having reasoned correctly, or having not taken some relevant information into account. A rational argument will then take the form of either trying to show the flaw in the other persons reasoning, or trying to introduce new and relevant information for the other person to take into consideration.)
Is it the case that I have blind faith in Rationality? No, unfortunately I don’t think questions about whether we should be rational can be honestly or coherently asked. Consider the question ‘Is this statement meaningful?’ In the act of asking it you give lie to the fact that you are already committed to the answer. Likewise, if anyone answers ‘no’, then we know that they are either being dishonest or just plain stupid. Similarly, asking whether you should be rational is something that commits you to rationality, thus making it a false or hollow question.
Anyway, if I’m not too mistaken about what precedes, then it is the case that I am allowed to convert people to my beliefs, but religious people are not. I wonder if maybe I actually need to show that religious beliefs have no foundation, meh. Once again philosophy comes down to having your cake and eating it too.
Side note: has anyone seen Hard Candy that could tell me how it ends? I fainted about half way through and do not want to try watching it again.
Firstly a pleasant topic: Would anyone be interested in turning my back yard into a vege garden? Kinda like a community project. Then everyone can share the produce and stuff. And we would all learn how to grow food in the process. I thought I'd throw the idea out there. If there is enough interest we can see about actually doing something. You would have to live in chch though. If I can find someone with one of those camera things I'll take a picture so you can all see how stupidly big and empty it is at the moment.
Title topic: How much of academia these days is nothing more than an elaborate excuse to do nothing while using big words?
Surely the fact that it identifies something deep and meaningful to so many people must show that there is some truth in it...
Case 1: Astrology.
I have enough faith in intelligence that I hope I don't need to spell this one out. I'll just mention it.
Case 2: Forer effect.
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
The end of the world has a strange sort of attraction to it. For a while now people have constantly predicted that the world would end in the near future. Of course, they were wrong, and now we look back condescendingly on various cults. In my lifetime I have seen a couple come and go. There was the whole millennium thing, something about bird flu, something about sars, a super flu, a bunch of global conflict, and so on and so on. Each coming along in tight-fitting brightly coloured packaging and sold to us through mass media hype. Oh and there is peak oil, and of course global warming nowadays. It reminds me of that fable by Aesop about the mass media that cried Armageddon! Then when a real wolf came along no one believed him. /emo
It remains a puzzle as to why there is this sick fascination with the end of the world. I suspect for some people it is a mere analogy to their messy bedroom; they could clean it up, but then it would just get messy again. I gather that for some people the end of the world is followed by eternal bliss, and they feel that the sooner we are stuck in an infinite period of time the better. For others, no doubt, it is nothing more than the natural progression from humanity to the end of the world; assuming we are the whole point, why should there be anything after us. For people in positions of power having a catastrophe just around the corner sets you a comfortable position, at least until it actually happens. And I suspect many people have realised that our mode of living, which requires infinite growth to continue, has to end at some point, and it is probably about time it did. So much for speculation.
Personally, I think it is easier to trip the giant in the direction he walks, than to tackle and force him backwards. The sooner our civilisation ends (let us be honest about what ‘the end of the world’ really means), the sooner we can get on to creating a world worth living in.
The Reformer who comes recommending any institution or system to the adoption of men, must not rely solely on logic and argument, or on eloquence and oratory for his success, but see that he represents one pretty perfect institution in himself, the centre and circumference of all others, an erect man.
I ask of all Reformers, of all who are recommending Temperance—Justice—Charity—Peace, the Family, Community or Associative life, not to give us their theory and wisdom only, for these are no proof, but to carry around with them each a small specimen of his own manufactures, and to despair of ever recommending anything of which a small sample at least cannot be exhibited:—that the Temperance man let me know the savor of Temperance, if it be good, the Just man permit to enjoy the blessing of liberty while with him, the Community man allow me to taste the sweets of the Community life in his society.
I cannot bear to be told to wait for good results, I pine as much for good beginnings. We never come to the final results, and it is too late to start from perennial beginnings.
But alas, when we ask the schemer to show us the material of which his structure is to be built. He exhibits only fair looking words, resolute and solid words for the underpinning, convenient and homely words for the body of the edifice, poems and flights of the imagination for the dome and cupola.
According to google, the universally upheld strong hold of truth and accurate information, I rank 107th for the most dangerous people in the world!
The proof is in the pudding.
What follows is an attempt to give poetic expression to an idea that I see at the heart of most historical discussions concerning humanities' relation to the divine and the natural.
Man is like a ship broken asunder on two great rocks in a stormy sea. On one rock, we discover Angels and Gods who would show us Truth and Beauty in our own reflections. On the other, we meet Beasts and Brutes that would teach us to tear our own flesh to shreds for Pleasure or Pain. And so often we deny that the ship wreck visible on the opposite rock is the same as the one found on the rock we fancy ourselves as occupying. But it is imperative that we recall, though torn and strewn, we are a single ship.
Comments, questions, and suggestions welcome.
Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man. - Hume
Be a human; but, amidst all your humanity, be still an animal. - era
Is it possible to make a meaningful distinction between no longer being a Christian because you have;
(a) rejected Christianity,
(b) transcended Christianity.
A couple of Thoreau's remarks seem to suggest the possibility of transcending Christianity. In a letter to his friend Harrison Blake Thoreau writes "It is either the Tribune on the plain, a sermon on the mount, or a very private ecstasy still higher up." In Civil Disobedience Thoreau remarks;They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.
[Christ] taught mankind but imperfectly how to live; his thoughts were all directed toward another world. There is another kind of success than his. Even here we have a sort of living to get, and must buffet it somewhat longer. There are various tough problems yet to solve, and we must make shift to live, betwixt spirit and matter, such a human life as we can.Thoughts, comments, or suggestions?
- We live in a world unlike anything that humankind had seen or dreamt of in the past. In this new world we are facing new problems that we must meet with new solutions. The past had old problems, old problems that have old solutions, and old solutions cannot help us solve new problems. The past is irrelevant, concentrate on the present.
- The world has to be the way it is, it has always been this way and nothing you can do can substantially change it. If you think otherwise you are a political idealist and can be safely ignored because you are ignoring reality. People tried to change the world in the past, it did not work then and it will not work now.
(If anyone actually believes either of the above sentiments and can give better expression to them, then please do so and I shall amend my versions accordingly.)
Practically speaking, religion is a response to the difficulties of living within society. Different societies have different problems, and it naturally follows that different societies correspondingly have different religions. The universal fact that all societies have religions tells us nothing more than that all societies have problems. In addition, societies with similar religions seem to have similar problems. The perfect society, one with no problems, would not be religious. However, it does not follow from this that religion in our society is a bad thing, or that by removing it we would make society better.
During a discussion yesterday concerning ἀγάπη I was reminded of an old thought I had as an adolescent; ‘what holds us together, holds us apart’. It makes sense on an individual level; the things that make me a coherent person (agency, rationality, memory, etc) are the things that distinguish me from other people. It also makes sense on the level of small groups of people; what it means to belong to a sports team necessarily requires considering why others are not to be understood as belonging to the sports team. The principle seems to generalise to all levels; in short, an essential aspect of any unity is that it distinguishes itself from the variety.
Consider what it means to be part of a community.
If my above characterization is correct, then it will mean something along to lines of there being a network of interpersonal bonds which hold the people together and enables them to function well as a community, and also that they will distinguish between ways of behaving towards members of the community and non-members of the community.
The question arose whether it is possible to have a well functioning community that does not exclude people or in any way distinguish between members and non-members. The reasons for desiring such an ‘open community’ seem clear enough, and the possibility of such a community seems to be the foundation of many utopian visions. My guess is that such a community could not exist for a significant period of time. Either the community would grow so large that the members no longer shared any actual bonds with other members, or it would transform into a community that did exclude people or distinguish members from non-members. If this community were to exist, then we could expect to see it develop into something like a unified global community. Of course, I think such a community impossible, but I also think that it would be very undesirable.
Instead I believe that a more realistic situation is one in which there are a plethora of communities, with meta-communities between the communities, and meta-meta-communities between the meta-communities, and so on. This would differ from the open community, because individuals are not members of meta-communities, their communities are members of the meta-communities. If we examine the world around us then it becomes apparent that such an arrangement is strikingly natural. Further to this, I would suggest that the super-meta-community would be what we might now call the community of life.
Perhaps the point is more fruitfully expressed as ‘what holds us apart holds us together.’
[edited: added more content]
We find ourselves living in a market place. We are expected to earn and purchase the necessities of our lives. Food costs money, clothes cost money, housing costs money; even knowledge and freedom come with a price tag. Am I suggesting that these things should be free, that is to say, their price set to zero? No, I am suggesting that they should not be included within the realm of things that prices can even begin to be applied to. Some people are suggesting that we should add a price tag to air! ‘Would you like some bottled air with your bottled water sir?’ No thank you, I should prefer to suffocate than live in such asphyxiating conditions.
Of course, we need to earn a living, for ‘food does not grow on trees, and fresh water is not just falling from the sky.’ Even so, I insist that each and every one of us must earn a living. The fruits of the trees do not pick themselves; the rain does not put itself into your cup. If you pick the fruit and collect the water, then you are earning a living, and it is noteworthy that in earning such a living you need not be earning money.
Such a distinction allows us to accommodate Thoreau’s claim that “The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downwards… You are paid for being something less than a man.” with his remark that “there is little or nothing to be remembered written on the subject of getting a living; how to make getting a living not merely honest and honourable, but altogether inviting and glorious; for if getting a living is not so, then living is not.”
Young philosopher and cat accomplice seek board near to the
I have been thinking a lot recently about what it means to grow up. “Grow up!” they say, “Give up!” I hear. Give up, make yourself acceptable and perchance sell your soul to become accepted. Shoulder your new responsibilities as Atlas shouldered the weight of the world. But the responsibilities by which humans flourish, those responsibilities that burden us with the weight of the world are dead to us; replaced with the responsibility to do whatever is expected of you. Surely the weight of the world is the greater burden of the two, but I would be crushed, as were some of my peers, under the weight of living according to expectations. Why should we not live as innocent children? Always living as if it were dawn, rubbing the sleep from our eyes while basking in our dreams. Looking around you see people asleep at noon, determined put that sleep back into their eyes, seeking ignorance to replace the innocence they have lost. “Grow up!” they continue, “Go back to sleep!” repeats a hollow echo.
I am very interested in the question regarding what it is to live well. It naturally follows that I am also very interested in answers to the question, or even better are exemplary lives. Moreover, I am particularly interested in exemplary lives which ended in martyrdom.
Anyway, I want to consider here whether or not I ought to be considered a christian. There seem to be some pretty strong reasons for thinking not; I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, or that the bible is anything more than a bunch of paper with words printed in it, or even that God exists. In short, I utterly lack faith.
But(!), there is a fairly significant aspect of christianity which concerns your deeds, and generally the way you live. For instance, the life and deeds of Jesus are held up as exemplary, and his teachings are to be followed. If ones status as a christian were to be decided based purely on actions and not at all on beliefs, then I might be in with a chance. Even then I am left with the problem that my life merely lines up with the good life that Jesus was on about, rather than me actually following the teachings of Jesus.
Now, assume I am somehow counted christian, surely if the term now means “person who lives well in a way which lines up with what Jesus taught” then the term is so vague and broad that it is void.
It might also be pondered at this point whether the good life as exemplified by Jesus was good because it was his, or because of some objective moral standards about good lives. I'm going to go with the latter. But then any reason I might have had to become a follower of Jesus seems to vanish completely, I can just live according to the dictates of morality and rationality.
As you can see, I like to think I can have my cake and eat it too. And besides, if god is as reasonable and lovely as is made out, I'm sure he'll have me in heaven regardless of my lack of faith.
I'm not sure how serious some people are, but the dream of saving the world seems to be a pretty common sentiment nowadays. I don't personally know if people in ages past had similar dreams, but I figure that if anyone did they were pretty rare. The idea that souls might need saving seems old enough, as old as the idea that our souls are in trouble I suppose. But the idea that the world itself might need saving, well that would seem to require the much more recent idea that the world itself is in trouble.
Because I'm doing a MA in philosophy I often get asked what I plan to do with it once I've finished, or more generally what I want to do with my life. I've taken to suggesting that I would rather like to save the world. This is actually a serious decision about what I want to spend my life doing. Given some of the reactions, I'm left wondering whether deciding to do something like that with your life really isn't as entirely insane as it sounds?
It is widely believed that food comes from supermarkets. Just yesterday I was feeling a little hungry, so i went down to twenty four hours to restock my cupboard. Particularly enlightened people have suggested that food actually comes from farms and factories, which seems plausible enough to most people who take the time to listen.
Both ideas seem wrong. They are however a very telling remark about the state of our world and the way in which most people have been lead to view it. Both the factory and the farm are what is known as workplaces. Some people go there for the best part of the day, do some work, get paid for having had their time thieved, and then go home and cook dinner with some food they bought from the supermarket. Most of the rest of people do the same thing, but instead of farms and factories, it is shops, offices, and etc. Food then becomes a a commodity, something that you have to earn by the good honest toil of your labour.
Instead, it might be thought that food should not be a privilege, or something that must be earned, but one of those basic human rights that should be secured for everyone insofar as it can be secured for anyone. That it should not be sold, or bought, it should be free. What a wonderful world we might have then.
yes. another one.
no it will not.
nor is it funny.
i am afraid it is not poetic nor just.
i am not.
no one i expect.
thanks.
i am sure they are all dying to know what i think anyway.
mostly because they don't know.
if they did then maybe they wouldn't.
it has all been a bit foolish to date.
this.
so long.
and thanks for all the comments.
in advance.
seems you haven't all left many yet.
i've only had half an hour and i've made 4 posts.
a poor excuse, i believe in equality.
yea. because in its absence it creats a void the same shape as it, in which we are able to see and discover the details of it anyway.
i didn't think you did.
no, i don't, still.
believe.
shrug. smile sweetly. uh huh. kat's least favorite idea... me telling everyone that she has a secret crush on a boy the identity of whom i do not know because she will not tell me. perhaps with good reasons, but likely with bad reason. kat's second least favorite idea... holding bets concerning the stealing of someone's something which even i really shouldn't go into if i want to win the bet. kat's third least favorite idea... that my use of the english language might be the correct one. or perhaps better than her misuse of it. kat's forth least favorite idea... she doesn't have one, girls can only have three ideas at a single moment. anything else? i am very sneaky - watch out for me.
there are a fairly good number of contenders for the most dangerous idea in the world. generally i think that it simply the belief that there is one exclusive right way of existing in this world. but to be more to the point, it seems to be the function of the world religions to explain that exclusive way to live and in consequence attain salvation from what we can probably all agree isn't the most wonderful existence imaginable. no doubt the religions help us feel better about ourselves. certianly some degree of what happens as a direct result of them is all very nice and positive.
i am now closer to the end of my life than i have ever been before. simiarly the world is closer to the end of the world than the world has ever been before. i would even hazard the guess that you are also in pretty much the same situation.
a little about myself might be useful here. i am reuben, though i've taken to using the tag "era" because it is shorter to type. era is also are spelt backwards. are also sounds like r. r is also the first letter of reuben. reuben is also my first name. so you see that it really all makes sense. i am a student of philosophy. i am currently trying to write a masters. with any luck it will amount to a guide to saving the world.
umm. i guess when i think of more interesting ideas to share then i will type them up and share them and hopfully hear what some of you think about them.
